Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

Board games

Where is the proper place to ask questions about board games? --88.78.228.143 (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends. I would say entertainment is a good place to start, unless it is asking something about the history of chess or something. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Try BoardGameGeek :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Debate on featured article?

To me it seems that this item is an attempt to start debate, which has been successful in doing so. I think the question and thread should be deleted. (Posting in the RD as:) --Anonymous, 20:23 UTC, July 9, 2009.

As I said in the section for the question, the first two questions were factual questions which have been answered. The third was about WP policy which, although it probably is better suited for the Help Desk, was answered as well. If you want to slap anyone's hand, it should be the respondents who turned it into a debate. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Elevators in train stations

Where is the proper place to ask questions about elevators in train stations? --88.77.248.29 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest asking on the Science reference desk. — QuantumEleven 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly WP:RD/M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

Where is the proper place to ask questions about surnames? --88.77.254.114 (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the nature of the question. Language would be good if you're looking for the history of a name. Dismas|^(talk) 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to ask questions about the usage of surnames? --88.77.254.114 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Humanities deals with questions about society, so there might be a good place. If you really can't decide, the miscellaneous desk would be a good choice as well. Dismas|^(talk) 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a whole host of questions one can ask about surnames, but this one was recently posed at the latter page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Does the man ever take the woman's name in marriage? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No fish please!

Sometime in the last hour or so - it looks like I trashed the entire RD/MISC page - fortunately, someone reverted it quickly...but I didn't do a thing wrong! I'm absolutely 100% certain that I hit the [edit] widget next to that question heading - added a paragraph with no fancy markup whatever and hit "Save page". There was about a 10 minute delay between hitting edit and hitting Save page - but nothing that should have wiped the entire page. There should be absolutely nothing you can do that'll wipe the text for the ENTIRE page when you hit 'edit' on just one section (although you could possible make it invisible or something). It seems to have erased all of the sections EXCEPT the one I was editing. Weird! Anyway - someone kindly posted something to my Talk page to ask if I'd like to self-revert. Please - when something that drastic happens again (not just to me - anyone) - for chrissakes don't politely wait for someone to fix it! Revert it ASAP! SteveBaker (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the fishy reference, Steve? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TROUT. Algebraist 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This has happened before, I think. It's one of the dreaded intermittent faults. Algebraist 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it happens. I've never understood it. --Tango (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen similar things happen. I've never wiped out an entire page, but I have seen WP silently ignore an Edit Conflict error so that I wind up wiping out a bunch of other edits. With the way the servers have been wonky lately maybe it silently ignored a "loss of session data" error or some other failure that should have stopped you from posting?. APL (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, since others have corroborated your version of events, your sentence is reduced to being slapped with a tiny trout: α -- Coneslayer (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing section leads to editing archive

When trying to add an edit to a relatively old section, I clicked the edit link by the paragraph as normal. After submitting, I noticed it had actually edited the archive [2]. Is this normal/acceptable/avoidable? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes / Yes / No. In other words, this is intentional. Your answer should still show up on the project page so don't worry about it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

borderline med advice

Bringing Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Alcohol_and_Exertion here for attention. The poster isn't specifically asking which option is healthier but does ask "what medically could be happening?" I note that I don't hold statements of "this is not a med advice question" to be particularly valuable. My gut feeling is that the question isn't med advice but that responses are likely to be. For that matter, I'm not entirely certain that my own answer is sufficiently distanced. — Lomn 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

removed thread

[3] What ever the question was things didn't go well. WP:DFTT, also WP:Don't insult the OP by suggesting they see a psychiatrist - when in fact all anyone else can see is flames etc..83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good removal; that thread was not going anywhere helpful. I can sympathize with Red Act, but just as incompetence is more likely than malice; malice is more likely than a genuine psychological problem. Calling them crazy just feeds the need for attention. Matt Deres (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that "see a psychiatrist" doesn't constitute making a diagnosis, so does not violate our medical advice policy. Telling a poster to see a "psychiatrist" rather than a "general practitioner" can be excused as being advice on how to be seen by a doctor of some type, since the OP had claimed that no otolaryngologist would see him. (95% chance he's a troll, of course, but that's beside the point.) Tempshill (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is frightening

I've been contributing to various reference desks, without creating an account, for a couple of months. No-one ever said I had to make an account or disclose my identity, and today's events convince me that doing so would be an entirely dangerous thing to do. Today I've made a perfectly reasonable and innocent reply to a query at WP:RDM#Arrow missile range, citing reliable sources and (I think) being entirely polite and uncontentious. Rather than a reasoned response, someone appears to be unreasonably interested in my real-world identity, which seems to me to be perilously close to internet stalking. I've nothing to do with this chap and whatever disputes he's having elsewhere - Is there any protection for anonymous users, or are we just sport to be bullied like this? 87.114.25.180 (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by not creating an account you are providing everyone with more information about yourself, don't you? If you create an account, you get to choose how much information want to share. It can be none at all - just some random username. It can be a complete biography. However, jumping to wild conclusions about the entire culture of the Reference Desk based on one idiot's opinion tells a lot more about you than your IP address. -- kainaw™ 15:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kainaw, - read the other users comments - see below - they are actually seriously insulting.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Also Mr.K, try to avoid the "tells me a lot more about you.." - it's not really in the spirit of WP:Polite. Please. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't login; the filter at work eats the cookies. 87.114.25.180 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It will depend on your work, but https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page may work correctly (though it some cases it gives annoying message boxes that are just as bad). Dragons flight (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he just wants you to identify with a username or something. He doesn't seem to understand that you are identifying yourself by signing your posts with four tides. Also he should probably be notified of this discussion on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think he/she is primarily concerned with sockpuppetry. I'm not saying this justifies the comments Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading that (I'm not the same anon IP) I find those comments complete unnacceptable - which they are: eg

• "First, you have to identify yourself"
• "And again, identify yourself otherwise your opinion will not be regarded"

At least other users told them off.

If that happens again I would report it. (opinion) It practically deserves a 24hr ban just for sheer arrogance - I'm not an admin. This is just trolling an anon user as far as I can tell.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) or maybe the hot weather makes everyone angry and antisocial.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think arrogance or ignorance is bannable. APL (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is if it's causing disruption to Wikipedia. I don't think this case deserves a ban though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How to improve RD

I love the RD idea, but even as active as I am on Wiki, I don't have time to monitor RD threads to see if they concern my area of expertise. How about a tool that would alert one if a certain word/phrase is used? This could be developed, in combination with WP:ALERTS, for example, to notify interested WikiProjects in a similar fashion. Note that this not only benefits RD, but often, discussions here provide content to expand encyclopedic articles... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to "How to improve RD" I'd like to see a shift away from "use google" type answers being given on the desks, of which there are far to many. Sure people could find a lot / most / all of the information they're looking for on google, but isn't the whole point of the RD to look up that info for people and link them to it? And presumably the people telling an OP to use google have already used google themselves and found the information, to verify that the information actually is on google before they tell the OP to use it. What's the harm in just posting a link rather than condescending reply detailing how easy it is to use the world biggest search engine? This also goes for articles too. I've seen people type entire paragraphs directing the OP to the search box rather than just linking to the relevant article in a professional way and quoting a line or two of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk • contribs)

It's the old give a man a fish philosophy. Many of us feel that it's desirable to educate novice users about solving their own problems. As to the original post, yes, that would be a useful tool. Afraid I'm no help developing one. — Lomn 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we should help people learn how to use search tools. But simply saying "try Google" isn't that helpful since it takes some degree of experience to filter those results for the best answer, or to construct the best search terms. Same thing for "use the search box" answers. Yes, it's annoying when someone asks about something for which there is clearly an article that they should read first. But sometimes the person asking the question just needs to know the right keyword(s) to find the article(s) that will answer their question. There really is no excuse for condescension... we all started off in the same place and just because we've accumulated the knowledge/education/life experience/confidence to attempt to answer someone else's questions doesn't mean we should be ***holes about it. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we get lots of "try google" answers? There are a few when the question is something that is extremely easy to find the answer to and it is clear that the OP didn't even try and find it for themselves, but even in those cases we usually give good answers. --Tango (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I question whether it's accurate to say we all started off in the same place. When you're referring to something which requires a complicated search query to find a meaningful answer then yes it's understandable someone without experience will may need help. But if you're asking something which can be answered with basically any sensible search query that's a different matter. Either that person has extremely major problems searching that they couldn't find the answer, or more likely they're just lazy. (I suspect it's usually the later since if they found their way here and managed to add a question they are unlikely to be that incompetent.) I also think it's worth reminding ops in these extremely simple cases that often they're wasting more time then they would have otherwise spent. Spending 30 seconds asking a question and spending 30 seconds reading the answer which they could have found in 10 seconds hardly seems an efficient use of time to me, and it seems to me that some OPs don't seem to have realised this. Also the reference desk is not intended to be a one way street. If a person suggests they OP should use a search engine, and the OP really can't find the answer, the OP should mention this and others can then help show them when they're going wrong. If you just provide a Google search link, most likely the OP will just click it, find the answer and end up none the wiser where they went wrong. Finally nothing is stopping someone else from providing what they see as a better answer. Personally I'm a strong believer that people should be allowed a fair amount of leeway in how they handle stuff provided it doesn't cause significant problems for others. If you feel someone didn't sufficiently answer the question provide your own answer. Unless you feel the person missed the point or was grossly uncivil, there's probably no point discussing the other person's answer. In fact, such things are often worse then the 'problem' that caused them. In any case, as Tango said, this type of stuff is rare anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that everyone had ideas for improving the RD. Mine is to immediately delete any and all questions that ask for opinion or fail to ask a question (anyone seen the user ranting that all his problems are the result of white race crimes). This thread, however, is about a tool request. It is possible to write a tool that scans the RD every 10 minutes or so for special words or phrases. It can be an application separate from Wikipedia. I would prefer a tool that allows me to mark threads as "watchable" and then I can be alerted when someone responds to a thread. I see it as a watchlist with a slightly higher granularity. -- kainaw™ 17:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kainaw. Could you provide an example of anyone on the desk ranting that their problems are the result of white race crimes? I have not seen anyone claim any such thing. 86.139.232.168 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's on the Humanities Desk for July 14, entitled "Historic Race Crimes". It's dreadful soapboxing and should have been deleted long ago. Malcolm XIV (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked on there, but I don't see anyone "ranting that all his problems are the result of white race crimes". Sorry if I'm being thick: could you provide a quote so I know what you mean? 86.139.232.168 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Can the whites ever make up for all their crimes against blacks, Asians, Muslims and the rest of humanity?"

You have to be very thick to read that and assume that this is a person looking for references on a topic of interest. There is no reasonable way to assume this person is white. The question is obviously not white. The questioner is also very racist as he or she (very likely he) does not distinguish between one white or another. All whites are grouped together as one group. All whites are solely responsible for race crimes against everyone else in the world. Pretending that this is an honest request for references is, as you said, thick. I personally take further offence that the questioner, who I am certain is black, is purposely avoiding making mention of Native Americans. -- kainaw™ 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that it's all very well to say "Sorry if I'm being thick" and make a big point about it, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that this "question" is a legitimate use of the Reference Desk and not just political soapboxing. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

With regards to those who are seeking "alerts" - are you aware of the RSS feed? For example, this feed monitors the Science Desk. Maybe some effort could be done to auto-parse that in a nice way? Nimur (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Constructive ideas are the way :) Any ideas on how to parse that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You can learn the basics in our Aggregator article. Basically, you can download a client or write a web script which subscribes to the RSS or ATOM feeds (like the one I linked above). The client can be configured to filter only updates you care about. If you are writing this as a script, you will need to design your own filtering method. Nimur (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of a reference desk

I think it should be made clear that the various reference desks are for questions about their subject - not about Wikipedia articles. I recently posted a question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics that should have been put on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Thanks, Yaris678 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that anyone outside of mathematics would be so anal as to refuse to answer questions about an article. I've seen (and answered) many questions that ask for further information that is not covered in an article. -- kainaw™ 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

surely he means things like content disputes and shit like that, not people asking more more info that isn't covered in the article

Yaris 678's post was dealt with helpfully and politely and not at all anally at RD/MA. Being ever so slightly anal, I would point out that it wasn't actually a question, more of an announcement. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't link to the "question", so I had to assume it was a question. Also, I didn't mean rude or nasty when I wrote "anal." Mathematics is an anal field. You can't do anything sloppily. Therefore, it is expected of mathematicians to be anal. -- kainaw™ 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting nicely off topic... the point is I asked a question in the wrong place, it was dealt with politely but I think it highlighted the fact that the helpdesk doesn't explain itself very well. Perhaps the template needs to be altered. You know, the one that is... Wikipedia:Reference desk/header

Yaris678 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should stick that in a collapse box or just link to the template rather than have it transluced on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. The template has a complicated address and I don't know how to link to it. If you don't mind doing it I will watch and learn. Yaris678 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely you must've learnt to make links by now? Algebraist 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks sarky. I am talking about linking to that specific template. I know how to link to a template with a less complicated address. For example Template:Wilmslow Road bus corridor. If you are so clever, why don't you link to the template I was referring to before. Yaris678 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Reference desk/header? You can't pass variable (the part after the |) in a link to a template. -- kainaw™ 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you don't need the template: bit. That is interesting. Thanks.

Going back to the original question, I think Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside should be edited so that it explains what a reference desk actually is. Yaris678 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You need the 'template:' bit for things in the template namespace, but the refdesk header isn't. Algebraist 16:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the Reference Desks for help in editing articles. That's one of the Reference Desks' primary, stated functions. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Where are these stated functions stated? Yaris678 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. Algebraist 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see asking for help with articles listed anywhere in Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. On the other hand, I do see quite a good description of what a reference desk is - i.e. it is like a service in a library where people help you find the information you want. I think some of this should appear on Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/leftside, possibly just cut and paste from the guidelines. I know there is a link to the guidelines, but this is under "How to answer a question". I think the meaning of a reference desk should be stated near the top. Yaris678 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't sure that the "editing help is a stated Refdesk function" claim appeared explicitly in the guidelines. One place it does appear is in this essay. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics is one of the friendlier areas of wikipedia. I didn't see the OP's original math-related question, but if someone proposed moving it from the reference desk to WPM, the first reason I can think of was they felt it would get more attention at WPM from math editors who would then improve the articles that the question was related to. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Science desk: ethyl acetate formation by cooking?

Here we go again. No, it's not a medical question. Maybe the OP is not a juvenile druggie whose mom locked up the superglue to keep him safe. But the ingredient is just too suggestive. Speaking from the experience of a good basic chemistry school education which led to us blowing a hole in the street with a firecracker made from shoe polish there's just a lot of things people will try. (I can't remember how, thank goodness.) How do we handle such questions? Framamax mentioned something similar once about a kid cooking heroin from prescription drugs. We should answer chemistry questions, of course, but does that include cooking instructions for harmful substances? Even if the OP won't abuse it the archives are open to everyone at anytime. Lisa4edit (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ref Deskers should be providing cooking instructions themselves, but if the info is already on the web I don't see any harm in providing a link to it. The person could easily find it themselves anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that's why my ears have been burning for three days! Good to see you back Lisa4, the best I was ever able to accomplish in chem was when we spotted the design flaw in the exhaust piping, dropped lit magnesium wire into the elbow, and watched the teachers outside the building trying to figure out where the smoke was coming from. :) God knows, if we'd been able to get a recipe for superglue... (Well, that and the 15 years I spent in the refining industry, helping to reduce the death rate cleaning cyanide columns and cutting flare-stack emissions)

I see no difference at all between providing cooking instructions and linking to cooking instructions. That was my main gripe in the hydromorphone case, it ended up with someone providing a link which described the correct solvent to use. Despite the (to me and several others) pretty obvious intent, one or other of the desk denizens simply had to provide an answer, in the cause of either freedom of knowledge, freedom of wiki-editors, screw-the-man, or "I have a link to it".

For every question, there is an answer - even if it may be a series of possibilities and evolving questions. In my view though, we should try to be responsible and first consider the maxim of "do no harm". Correct answers should always be secondary. If you asked "how to place bombs in a subway system for maximum effect", I could give you pretty good answers but of course neither I or anyone else would ever do that. But where is the line, is it OK if just one person hurts themselves? What if they tell their friends before they cause themselves permanent brain damage? I realize that I may stand somewhat (lots) on the side of caution, and innocent questions may get caught in the net - but you know what? First and foremost, we should be responsible citizens of our tiny little world. We should all evaluate questions and answers for the possibility of harm, widely construed, all the time. Franamax (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh what? I just learnt Fischer esterification last semester ... which basically since both alcohols and organic acids are present in foods, my imagination ran wild with the possibilities I could do with it. I am going to major in some branch of chemistry (most likely), so I also want to know why esters aren't produced in greater amounts since both alcohols (aromatic alcohols are present in a lot of essential oils even without adding EtOH) and organic acids are in great abundance in foods. (By greater amounts, I mean convenient ways to produce 10x the concentration, not like any form of visible liquid or precipitate.)

And please, I wasn't trying to cook up an inhalant. Ethyl acetate is present in minute amounts in a lot of food, e.g. wines. I just want to increase the concentration of pleasant esters in food. I basically want stronger FLAVORS, I don't expect that I would even get a high enough yield to become high on it. John Riemann Soong (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed

In the new "Impossible manager" post on Misc, I removed the anon's advice to call the manager a "fucking blowjob" or "fucking jew" and to smash up all his stuff. I guess this sort of post is a downside to allowing advice questions. Tempshill (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal. I don't see any policy or guideline being violated, and the correct way to deal with that would have been to point out the obvious faults and problems with following that course of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reasonable person would consider such advice inflammatory nonsense rather than a real effort to provide a useful answer. Friday (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday; but I removed it because it was inflammatory nonsense and an obvious troll. (Because he mentioned Jews, he made sure to refer to blacks, too, FWIW.) Tempshill (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscarriages

What do others thing of this question Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Miscarriage question (perm link). It's awfully close to a request for medical advice even if the OP has stated this was not the intention IMHO. I wasn't going to answer it but noticed 76's reply which I felt was inaccurate Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the question is "Is there any connection between males and miscarriages?" That doesn't seem like media advice. The other stuff is just giving background to why he's asking. Strongly advise him to tell his girlfriend to seek proper medical attention, but I don't see any reason to removed the thread or prevent people from answering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Computer desk

I made an edit to the computer desk - now it won't load, and says error on page, and I can't open the edit history or anything - no idea what I did wrong - is it still ok??83.100.250.79 (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, back to normal -still says error..83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Archives

I was adding the missing archive links for July to December at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives and noticed something which had been bugging me for a while. We call all of them answered questions from the era when the unanswered questions were archives seperately but of course nowadays it doesn't matter if the question is answered or not they're archived together. How about we rename all sections to simply questions removing any reference to 'answered' etc except for 'Old answered questions'? Any objections Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your efforts! --Scray (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Bumping policy

For those who don't use the term "bumping", I am referring to the practice of copying an entire question and all answers from the reference desk and pasting it in as a new question.

In the past, some users have used bumping to keep their questions down in the "new question" area. From what I saw, the consensus was "bumping is bad." A concession was that a user should refine a question and paraphrase the answers - even linking to the original question - if the user does not feel that the question was answered. However, the official instructions state: "If your question has been archived but you feel that it hasn't been adequately answered, copy and paste the archived discussion as a new question." Should the instructions be changed? -- kainaw™ 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they should be changed. Copying a load of old replies to the current page is unhelpful, unnecessary and a waste of space. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The new archiving system makes it very convenient to directly link to the original question; those instructions were out of date. Nimur (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

With two responses that the instructions are no longer valid, how shall we word the new instructions. My suggestion is:

If you feel that your question has not been satisfactorily answered, please refine your question and ask it again. Provide a link to the archived discussion to allow others to easily see the previous discussion.

I feel that the two important things to note are that the question should be refined and a link should be provided to the previous answer. -- kainaw™ 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - unless the question is significantly reworded, there is rarely anything left that anyone wants to say by the time it's scrolled off the top. But several people recently have 'bumped' after just a day. That's way too soon - and can even 'fork' the discussion on two separate threads which is a disaster. The revised instructions need to make it clear that you should wait at least three days before 'bumping' - and that the new question should be more specific, or more clearly worded - or perhaps provide more background information. SteveBaker (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed it for now. I expect that someone else will have much better wording to change it again soon. -- kainaw™ 14:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to give some directions on how to link to the article as the people doing this may not be very familiar with such trickery. Dmcq (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this when the thread was fresh, but yet another reason not to "bump" questions is that it tends to screw up the automatic archiving: a question with a date that's N days ago ends up being interspersed with questions from a later day. The archiving bot does not absolutely depend on questions' dates being strictly increasing -- it can usually deal with a few slight discrepancies -- but its heuristics aren't perfect, and a bumped question makes it much more likely that the bot won't do its job perfectly. In that case it will emit warning or error messages that require me to check or manually clean up after its actions, which is obviously a nuisance for me. So my preference is a big "no" for bumped questions. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil editor

Re: this, can someone either 1) ban this guy, and/or 2) remove his question? I think he's definitely lost Ref Desk privileges (if not general Wikipedia privileges). Very active violation of WP:NPA. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he deserves a ban, a warning should do for now (he hasn't been given one yet). Also you should inform him on his talk page that he's being discussed here. But I can certainly sympathize with him. In my experience as well I find that people answering don't always read the question and provide unintentionally unhelpful replies. That's not a problem in itself, but I've gotten so frustrated in the past when I've tried to point out in a friendly a civil way that my question hasn't been answered , only to be told "you don't pay for it", "it's a free service", "we're volunteers" bla bla bla. You can see why someone would get annoyed. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OR others' "unhelpful" advice often jogs the memory of other editors or leads to digging to find out why and how their reply sounded "off". It has occasionally happened that I misread a question, usually when I was too tired to admit to myself that I shouldn't be doing this. Some people are more prone to mis-reading than others, but it even happens to our most proficient contributors. Sources also don't always agree, and what was "generally accepted" a while ago might be debunked now. I for one was so thoroughly put off by the above IP that I'll be trying to circumnavigate him/her best as I can. I'd also like to be young, beautiful and infallible, but I don't even get one out of three :-) If we limit who gets to answer ref desk questions we're going to lose in the end. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've likely asked as many questions as I've answered on these desks. It is certainly frustrating to see responses where the answering poster very clearly hasn't actually read the question, instead they've invented a new question to which they can quickly respond. Possibly for the satisfaction of having answered a RefDesk question. I've reviewed my own participation and realized that I wasn't actually making an answer, just a comment - and I just try to do better in future. And quite often, we see OP's asking really badly formulated questions and just have to guess at the true nature when answering. Doesn't matter though, there is no excuse for excoriating volunteers for their inadequacy within the thread. Here on the talk page is the place to discuss general lameness.

So I'd say that the best response to this kind of incivility is to just make a comment that system issues can be discussed on the talk page and we will no longer consider the question on its own merits. Then stick to it. (It's a form of shunning, which is used in many communities) I for one am certainly not going to cast my mind back to the 80's and say anything about the Compugraphic system. After that kind of performance by the OP, it seems more like they want to teach than learn. So teach away guy, I'm off to my next class! Franamax (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the issue for me, and I suspect this was also the issue for Baseball Bugs. The Ref Desk is a public forum where anyone can read questions and responses. I wouldn't bother posting there (or anywhere) if I thought that only one person was likely to read what I wrote. That doesn't seem like a productive use of my time; at the very least I'd expect to get paid for it. Because I'm not writing just for the original poster, I'm not especially trying to answer the original poster's question. I'm just trying to say something that might be useful or interesting to people reading the thread. Many people seem to get that, but sometimes we get a response from the original poster that says, in effect, "how dare you not answer my question." I think it's fine to complain about misinformation, but to complain about correct information that failed to help you personally is incredibly rude. We thought we were having a friendly conversation as equals and now it turns out that you saw us as your servants. I think Baseball Bugs' reaction was the only reaction that was sensible in the circumstances, since there's no obvious Net equivalent of shocked silence followed by walking away. -- BenRG (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that's possibly the worst attitude I've ever seen. Your reply should always try and answer the original question, and if that happens to help others in the process, which it often will, then great. But formatting your replies for the wider audience at the expense of answering the op is ludicrous and defeats the entire point of the Reference Desk. Of course you're writing just for the original posters benefit, and having the attitude that helping only one person out is a waste of time is not a good attitude to have. Secondly, I found Baseball Bugss comment to be extremely uncalled for and almost antagonistic to the point to goading a reaction out of the op. If he didn't want to answer the question further, he should have said nothing at all, not make unhelpful, sarcastic comments which the op would obviously not take well in his state of mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the intended tone of Baseball Bugs's response ("Apparently he thinks he's paying us for this service") was not sarcastic but cold. You really object to an answer that won't help the original poster but will help others? For example, I recently mentioned the Windows path syntax for something, even though the original poster was apparently using Mac OS X and someone else had already given the Unix path syntax, because it's a useful feature that's also available on Windows Firefox and the drive letter syntax there isn't obvious. Do you object to that? -- BenRG (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, of course I don't object to a little bit of extra info. But answering the actual question first should always be the priority. I'm just saying, having been on the question asking side myself, I know how frustrating it can be too see loads and loads of replies, a sub-discussion develop about a specific point raised by someone else, and a few jokes thrown in too, but the original question not answered. I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "F*** you, too" is patently uncivil and would get you blocked for awhile if it were on an article talk page. The OP complained, was given a civil response indicating that nobody was trying to be a bother and that he should calm down, and responded by getting more hostile. Ban-city, if you ask me. We don't have to put up with that. People were bending over backwards to try and come up with things for the OP, and if the OP doesn't like what they came up with, he/she should take their business elsewhere. To be rude and offensive about it is simply, unequivocably, uncalled for. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

People usually get warnings for the first offense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear, 98. Tempshill (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment "apparently he thinks he's paying us for this service." (which is what prompted the "F*** you too" response), although not blatantly offensive, was hardly civil. The actual course of events as I see it was that OP complained (somewhat brusquely) that the answers were getting sidetracked, was given a response indicating that nobody was trying to be a bother, followed by a flippant, acerbic aside, to which the OP over-reacted with profanity. From your event summary and your other posts in this thread, I surmise that you may have taken the "f*** you" personally. A close look at the indentation shows it was in response to Baseball Bugs's comment, not yours. I seriously doubt any vitriol was directed at your response in particular, at least no more so than it was directed at the Ref Desk in total or the world in general. - BTW while your response was mostly civil and level-headed, including a "go somewhere else" rejoinder likely did not help with the ultimate goal of calming the OP down. Very rarely do people appreciate "love it or leave it" responses, even when they are factually accurate. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this question when it was posted, as I knew the answer. I have answered it now, a bit late. I agree that the OP was very uncivil. Nevertheless, I am sorry to see so much discussion on the refdesk about the editor's behaviour. 98.217.14.211's response to the OP's complaint was OK (and could have been even gentler), but it was really pointless to respond to the OP's Sorry you took it so personally - but I'm not asking for peoples recollections of stuff that I clearly haven't asked for. I'm just asking people to read the fucking question. When an uncivil editor has been reminded once that we are volunteers, further rudeness is best ignored, IMHO. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Planet colour guy?

Is WP:RD/S#day and night on gas giants the planet colour guy, do we think? --Tango (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely. He implicitly agreed with my references to his blocked account. — Lomn 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal - image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FEntertainment&diff=304578102&oldid=304578045

I've no objection to help identify naked people - but if the poster is going to title it "Safe for Work" - I can assume that they are taking the piss.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked and is attempting to argue that Wikipedia is not censored (therefore, links to pornographic images are not a problem) and that giving a section title "Safe For Work" does not imply that the links in the section are safe for work. He is obviously a troll. -- kainaw™ 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dribbling edits

I've noticed that some editors will "dribble" their edits -- make numerous sequential and minor edits to a single article rather than a single larger edit. This has the effect of forcing other editors to go to the history and compare the version of the article pre-dribbling to the version post-dribbling to see the full effect of what should have been a single edit. It also has the effect of hiding substantive edits among a flurry of non-substantive edits. I assumed that this sort of behavior would be discouraged, but haven't seen any guidelines to this effect. Is there a WP policy on this or am I being unnecessarily picky? Wikiant (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any firm policy against this. Editors are encouraged to use the 'Show preview' button, but obviously some don't, and even when you do, it's easy to notice something you missed or think of something you forgot only after you've hit 'Save page'.

If I'm reviewing a page's history, I find it just about as easy to diff a range of revisions as just one, so this has never seemed like a big deal to me. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with people correcting their mistakes, that is the whole point of wiki isn't it. // 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The same issue comes up in version control systems, and it boils down to user preference. Nimur (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I do this - I'm just very bad at spelling grammar etc. It does require to select a range of 'diffs' when examining histories, and I too find it annoying when others do it. But unless I can be totally re-educated with a better brain, it may be difficult to eradicate.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "wikiant" might be concerned with people gaming the system, attempting to introduce POV edits and the like into articles hidden in a series of spelling, formatting, and minor grammar edits - I don't think anything can be done about this and we have to assume good faith.. I have seen such activities result in arguments before, but I don't think there is an easy or fair solution. A anti - multiple minor edit policy is unworkable - since when correcting a long article it's sensible to correct the article section by section.

I've often wondered if an 'edit history by section' function would be useful - I think it would, but probably wouldn't be a panacea.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You could bring this up at the village pump Wikipedia:Village pump - which I think is the better place to discuss it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've also observed editors hiding POV edits in this manner. FWIW, one way to mitigate this effect is to put a timer control on edits. For example, for a given section a given user/IP could make a maximum of one edit per minute. Wikiant (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to do that here - principally as a way to handle edit conflict. I edit the article fairly quickly - do a 'Save page' and then clean up any small errors or formatting issues in a second edit. It's certainly a well-established way to work - lots of people do that. Using it to hide changes is obviously evil - but that's life. Systems that have timed edits (I'm thinking of Slashdot for example) are incredibly annoying when you need to reply to several points from different people in the same thread. SteveBaker (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My experience has been quite the opposite. I've found that 'dribbling edits' can be an effective way to counter the POV-pushing of fringe theorists. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The other day I spent half an hour adding numerous sources to an article, and then the browser somehow lost my edits before I previewed or saved the page. Dribbling can have a legitimate purpose. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is about editing in general (rather than about editing a Ref Desk or this talk page), wouldn't it fit better somewhere else, such as WP:Village pump (policy)? As for the substance, a huge batch-edit can be really difficult to deal with, except by reverting all the good or unobjectionable stuff together with the things you want to defer for further discussion. This happened to me when a machine-aided editor destroyed all the table formats in The Bronx while making many benign and positive changes all in one edit. Since I'd put a lot of time and thought into formatting those tables, I wanted to discuss his/her reasons, but it just ended up as reversion and counter-reversion with the final reversion in my favor (we both desisted to avoid edit warring and 3RR). On the other hand, there's nothing to be gained but confusion by intentionally dribbling out edits of the same nature and purpose instead of working out your final solution before hitting "Save". Everyone has the right to second thoughts, but if you can combine like with like before the final edit, reading, considering and discussing edits is far easier. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll?

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Wikipedia_languages. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so from that question (I haven't looked at the edit history). We do have wikis on other 'dead languages' such as anglosaxon etc. http://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hēafodsīde

Seemed like a reasonable question on the surface. I've responded to it as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the IP's only edit, and yes, I suppose you're right, WP:AGF. The comparison with Serbo-Croatian was weird, though. Moldovan is a different story, that wiki is dead, as I've commented in the thread. Not because the number of speakers are too few, but because for some reason it was written in the Cyrilic alphabet. Moldovan nowadays is written in the Latin alphabet, and is identical to Romanian. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kpalion's recent edit makes it clear that the question is asked in good faith. Serbian Wikipedia: 80447 articles, Croatian wikipedia: 64222 articles, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia: 23511 articles. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Article counts in these very obscure Wiki's are completely meaningless. Several of them have unreasonably high article counts - but when you look into it, you find that they have a few thousand automatically generated articles on things like US Cities that are generated from Census data and the like...a few hundred more for all of the chemical elements and so on. Just one editor with a knowledge of 'bots can hugely inflate the article count. Take, for example, the Volapük wiki. It has 118,000 articles - more than the Danish, Esperanto, Korean or Arabic Wiki's - yet there are only 30 people in the entire world who can actually speak the Volapuk! SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But if one of them happens to be a wikipedia bot programmer... Nimur (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

...exactly. SteveBaker (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

removed rambling soapboxing

here APL (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. The Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has Template:Notaforum at the top. This template suggests posting your thoughts on the conspiracies at the Ref Desk. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had an attack of the sofixit. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Joke questions.

I'm beginning to get sick of "joke questions" (eg the recent one about Clown DNA). I think we should have a policy against them. At the very least, I'd like to see a simple, polite template we can stick on them so prevent people from encouraging the OP's by giving funny answers in reply. If this behavior became commonplace, it could seriously threaten what we do here. We certainly allow humor on the RD - but it has to be relevant to the question - and a joke question (by definition) is not. I'm thinking of something like:

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be an attempt at humor. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to discourage joke questions by not replying to them - or in extreme cases, removing them. If this is a genuine question, please rephrase it in a way that helps us to understand what you are asking and why. Thank you.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 87 questions on the Science refdesk, and one (maybe two, if you count the one about the people being killed while having sex) are jokes. Frankly, I don't see this as a problem. If the ratio were more like 1 in 20, then maybe I would support something like this. Until then, it just seems a little curmudgeonly. – ClockworkSoul 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's hard to tell if the original poster is sincere or screwing around. It doesn't help when everyone else starts adding nonsense answers. I think the best practice is to defuse the joke (which wasn't even funny) by providing a concise, correct answer. Nimur (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a problem with trying to strike out every humorous question, in that we won't agree on what the threshold is. That said, I'd have no issue with removing something such as "clown DNA", which I feel would have broad consensus as a non-question. We remove rambling screeds and the like (see immediately preceding section), and I don't see this as being significantly different. As for the suggested template: nah, for anything that blatantly ridiculous, simple removal is sufficient. There wouldn't be any ambiguity about why we suppressed clown DNA questions. — Lomn 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless said clown happens to be a fish. Googlemeister (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for everyone

I'm leaving on a long wiki-vacation, but before I do, I want to thank everyone that makes the reference desk an fun and enlightening place to spend time. So thank you, and feel free to add the following to your collection.

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For helping to make the Wikipedia Reference Desk into both a useful forum for visitors and enjoyable place for old-timers to share their wisdom. Dragons flight (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted highly offensive comments

While I'm very reluctant to delete comments for being offensive but I feel these [4], expressing support for genocide, clearly stepped over the line and have nothing redeeming that requires us to keep them. Whether this IP was serious, attempting to explain an idea a tiny number of people hold on the topic, or making a very poor joke I don't know and I don't think it matters. I've informed the 2 other editors whose comments I deleted, along with the IP. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very off-colour joke. Well removed. Fribbler (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You were, of course, doing what I should have done myself instead of expressing my anger in the form of a snide remark. Good call. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed soapboxing

I've taken the liberty of removing the soapboxing from Bowei Huang's latest section [5]. I left the actual question, rhetorical as it seems to me. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)